Grr. The correct response would be to do nothing at all, apart from issuing a press release saying “we’re not going to let a halfwit with a firework change anything about the way we live. If you think terrorism is a threat, or that Al Qaeda is a real terror network rather than a brand, then you’re a paranoid loony and you’re believing precisely what Osama Bin Laden wants you to believe”.

Sadly, politicians are genetically incapable of doing nothing at all, so instead we’ll get breathtaking stupid rules like “no blankets for the last hour of your flight”, and people being arrested for having the runs.

“But Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s capture will also raise questions on whether he should be charged in a civil court or by a military commission as KSM initially was.”

Not sure about that at all. Have a feeling the Supreme Court would have something to say. I’ll admit I might be wrong about this (see! humility for a change!) however, the military commissions are only used on people caught outside and kept outside the US. Set foot in the US and you’re covered by all the usual rules about fair trials and all the rest.

Thus Guantanamo: it’s not US soil so the Constitutional protections don’t apply. Umar’s going to get tried in a civilian court.

As of course was Richard Reid.

Is there any kind of argument at all, from any premise, for not trying him in a normal court? Given the witnesses, forensic and medical evidence, a court that somehow couldn’t convict him would just not be fit for purpose for any serious criminal trial.

Indeed. This could yet be a successful act of terrorism: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/26/an-attempted-act-of-terrorism/

Good piece from Cato – US libertarians in Not Always Fruitloops shock! The piece it links is also worth reading in its own right.

But Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s capture will also raise questions on whether he should be charged in a civil court or by a military commission as KSM initially was.

Federal charges have been filed.

Tim W is sort-of-right about military commissions and US soil. The disturbing counterpoint is the case of José Padilla. Also worth noting that the original argument in relation to Gitmo was that its detainees were outside any legal protection whatsoever, which is quite, quite wrong.

John B

> If you think terrorism is a threat, or that Al Qaeda is a real terror network rather than a brand, then you’re a paranoid loony.

How do you account for all the Islamic extremist bombings that occur worldwide each week, that get covered by the BBC and etc. Or the 7/7 bombings?

Are they happening or not ?

John B managed to be both completely right and wrong at the same time which is of course classic liberalism.

1 Al-Qaeda is a real terror network.
2 This guy probably didn’t have too much to do with Al-Qaeda
3 Politicians are absolutely incapable of doing nothing so we will no doubt get a bunch of regulations that fix nothing.

Just Visiting @ 7, I think John is talking about the real (infinitesimal) as opposed to perceived (huge) risk to us from terrorism, and our responses to it (perhaps worth your time).

Ukliberty

(9) – you quote a nice article.

Right now in the UK the death rate from terrorism is small – (I wonder at what cost in policing/intelligence send?)

But looking round world, there are places where it is a regular occurence.
And even if the death rate is small, that fear can have far reaching effects (such as recent self-censorship on Index of Censorship ).

And in my small UK market-town – two former muslims I know have been attacked twice by muslims, who follow the mainstream Islam position that apostasy deserves death.
They’ve not been killed yet- but they are now away in a safe house and it looks like they will never be able to live here again.

The article closes very sensibly – leaving the debate around the question of what measures are justified to confront terrorism:
“Deep concern about extreme events is not necessarily
unreasonable or harmful. Thus, efforts to confront terrorism
and reduce its incidence and destructiveness are justified. But
hysteria is hardly required.”

@7,8 – yes, there are Islamist extremist bombings. They’re carried out by groups that call themselves things like Al Qaeda In Iraq, Al Qaeda In Mali, Al Qaeda In Yemen.

But these groups aren’t in communication with each other, don’t have a centralised supply network, leadership or training network. This hasn’t existed since we destroyed the centralised AQ operations in Sudan and then Afghanistan. Rather, they use the Al Qaeda name, so that people think they’re scarier than if they were called The Islamist Sunni Front For Fighting Those Bastard Shias In The Next Village.

John B

> But these groups aren’t in communication with each other

This raises several questions:
i) What does it matter – was the threat on the plane into Detroit any less because of no of such communication.

ii) Even if you were right – communicating together or not, they seem to be motivated by similar Islamic thinking -something does unite them.

iii) What’s your evidence for that lack of communication? I would imagine these groups would go to some lengths to keep their comms secret….

The Cato article is surely correct. This quantity of that particular explosive was never intended to bring the plane down and could not have done so unless in a contained shaped charge against fuselage or window at high altitide-even then success would have been unlikely. So although the “bomber” may have believed it would bring the plane down, those instructing him would know that was very unlikely. Much more likely that the success was the publicity coup and timing coupled with the ongoing disruption and over reaction that has followed.